On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 15:23:30 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:00:16PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > Yes, while suboptimal, this is the current dpkg-maintscript-helper > > behavior, which is pretty basic and will not cover these kinds of corner > > cases. It could well be considered a bug, but then I think the script is > > a hack and a dead end, and I'm not really planning on wasting my time > > working on its logic, instead I'd rather spend it improving the native > > conffile support in dpkg proper. > > And improving the native support means what, exactly? You can't assume that > an obsolete conffile should be removed on upgrade; some of these conffiles > are changing package owner, some of them need to be moved to a new location > on disk, some are being replaced by non-conffile config files, and some > should really be dropped. There's no way for dpkg to know automatically > what the right thing to do is, that's why we have this in maintainer > scripts.
Obviously. Improving native support means that dpkg itself would handle the logic, and track it itself, at the direction of the maintainer, and not through an external script that does stuff under dpkg's nose and needs to be called in multiple maintainer script actions. I've talked about this elsewhere, but the way the maintainer would notify (once) dpkg would be either via a new dpkg-conffile program (which I've started already), or through the conffiles control file, which would imply no need for any maintainer scripts. Regards, Guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130716014409.ga18...@gaara.hadrons.org
